State v. Franks
1979 La. LEXIS 8307, 377 So. 2d 1231 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who assists felons by driving a 'get-away' vehicle and helping transport stolen goods from a crime scene commits an overt act from which a trier of fact can infer the specific intent to help the felons avoid arrest, thereby satisfying the elements for being an accessory after the fact.
Facts:
- On May 31, 1978, John Pailette, David Levasseur, and Timothy Weeks discussed burglarizing a building while at Pailette's apartment with Arnold Lee Franks.
- Franks refused to join in the commission of the burglary.
- While Franks remained at the apartment, Pailette, Levasseur, and Weeks burglarized a doctor's office and an adjacent pharmacy.
- Shortly after, Pailette returned and asked Franks for the use of his truck to transport the stolen goods.
- Franks drove his truck to the site of the burglary and helped the others load the stolen goods into it.
- Franks then drove the burglars and the stolen goods back to the apartment.
- For his assistance, Franks was given a carton of cigarettes.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Arnold Lee Franks in a trial court with being an accessory after the fact to simple burglary.
- Franks waived his right to a jury trial and was tried by a judge.
- Franks filed a motion to quash the bill of information, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court found Franks guilty.
- Franks then filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court also denied.
- The trial court sentenced Franks to a two-year suspended sentence with three years of supervised probation.
- Franks (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does driving a 'get-away' truck from a burglary scene and helping load stolen goods constitute the crime of being an accessory after the fact, specifically by 'aiding the offender' with the intent to help them avoid arrest, even when the burglary has not yet been discovered by police?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, Justice
Yes. Driving a 'get-away' truck from a burglary scene and helping load stolen goods constitutes being an accessory after the fact because these actions are overt acts from which the specific intent to help offenders avoid arrest can be reasonably inferred. The statute, R.S. 14:25, requires aiding an offender with the intent that they 'avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.' Citing State v. Jackson, the court affirms that an overt act to prevent the felon's arrest is necessary. The act of loading a truck with stolen goods and driving the perpetrators from the scene is precisely such an overt act. The court reasons that the intent to help the burglars avoid arrest is inherent in the act of facilitating their escape from the crime scene, making it irrelevant that the police had not yet discovered the crime.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'intent' element for the crime of accessory after the fact in Louisiana. It establishes that specific intent to help an offender avoid arrest can be inferred circumstantially from the nature of the aid provided. The ruling is significant because it confirms that a person can be convicted as an accessory even if law enforcement is not actively pursuing the principal felons at the time the aid is rendered. This lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors, who can point to the act of assistance itself (like driving a getaway car) as sufficient proof of the requisite criminal intent.
